Much more wind power is needed.
"Now you've scared us; give us a solution." That was the reaction Simon Michaux received when he presented the results of his report to the Swedish government in February this year.
If you're easily scared, the report is not something to read late at night. His calculations show that even in the first generation of electrification, there will not be enough rare metals or energy to make the transition. The result could be systemic collapse. Told you not to read it!
Noting that there was no realistic plan for the transition, he made his own calculations. It became clear that transitioning the economy from fossil fuel dependence to renewable energy would be problematic. Remaining dependent on oil is not an alternative either.
Simon Michaux, originally a mining engineer from Australia, attracted attention when he presented his findings a few years ago. Since then, he has been lecturing governments and companies on his conclusions. He now works for the Finnish equivalent of the Geological Survey of Sweden.
He explains that today's economy and industrial development are based on oil and remained stable between 1986 and 2005 because there was enough oil.
But something happened 18 years ago. The demand for oil increased while the market couldn't increase production. This eventually led to the global financial crisis of 2008.
The problem was partly solved by the United States extracting oil from shale. However, oil production may have peaked in 2018. Instead, biogas and biofuels are compensating to some extent. But even that will peak in 2027 and then start to decline. Something else will be needed to sustain the economy after that, argues Simon Michaux. And it's coming soon. In addition, climate change due to emissions is becoming increasingly evident.
But what will replace oil? Electrification? That's exactly what he's calculated, as the United Nations, the EU, the International Energy Agency and other policymakers are pointing in that direction. It involves energy sources, power grids, and energy storage.
– They all have a plan that wind and solar will be 70 percent of the energy sources.
Expanding nuclear power isn't feasible, based on the time it takes to build plants and the sheer number needed, which is 218 globally, according to his calculation.
– Nuclear power in its current form cannot help us, but perhaps an evolution of the technology will be able to. They can be built anywhere, but they're complex and expensive. We are using technology developed in the 1950s, and there is resistance to exploring new ways of doing things.
He mentions the possibility of using liquid fuel from the radioactive substance thorium and uranium in the form of salts and certain metals that can be made liquid.
– China has a system that produces two megawatts of molten thorium salt, but Western leaders don't want to talk about it.
Large investments in nuclear power are also required.
So electricity is supposed to replace oil. In 2018, the world produced 26,653 terawatt-hours of electricity per year. It is calculated that nearly 50,000 terawatt-hours per year will be needed to replace fossil fuels. An additional 940 million tons of corn and soybeans are needed to fuel ships and planes. By comparison, 402 million tons of wheat were produced in 2018.
– All systems work well on a small scale, but when you scale them up for eight billion people, there are problems. The biggest problem is the amount of land needed to grow the amount needed to replace oil. The planet just cannot do this.
But it's not just the vastly increased crop production that's the problem.
Renewable wind energy brings significant intermittency to electricity production, which is currently balanced by fossil fuels.
– Wind and solar don't work either because you need storage, and we don't have the technology to store enough energy.
Hydropower is great for storage.
Hydropower is one way to store energy, but it would take a 50% increase in freshwater use to create the possibility of 28 days of storage, which Michaux believes may be necessary.
– Can we expand and have five times as many hydropower plants in the world? This is the problem. There is a lack of suitable sites.
Another option is to store energy in batteries. However, building all the wind turbines, solar panels and batteries requires a significant amount of minerals. These include copper, nickel, zinc, chromium, lithium, graphite, and rare earth metals. Michaux calls minerals the new oil.
Nickel, copper, zinc, and lithium are just a few of the metals needed in the transition.
The problem is that current mining production and existing reserves are insufficient to produce even the first generation of renewable technologies to replace fossil fuels. What is produced will need to be replaced within 10 to 25 years. Only then can the first units be recycled.
Based on 2019 mining production figures, it would take 255 years to mine enough copper, 2,325 years to mine enough cobalt, 13,388 years to mine enough lithium, and 29,000 years to mine enough germanium.
It has been calculated that 6.1 trillion tons of copper are needed to create the first generation of renewable technologies. Current reserves are estimated at 880 million tons. So far in history, we have mined 700 million tons. The same amount must be mined in the next 22 years, despite the scarcity of newly discovered deposits.
Even when deposits are known, there is no guarantee that a mine will be built, or that it will be profitable. An alternative could be to make batteries from other materials, says Michaux.
– There is some research, but it is not taken seriously because the existing battery industry is focused on lithium-ion chemistry, and even if they realize they need to make batteries from something else, they say they need to focus on the next three to five years and leave it to someone else to figure out what other types of battery they need.
The conclusion is that today's plans are not viable, and what is needed to make the green transition has been underestimated. It requires a new battery chemistry with different minerals and an entirely new society. This is because we do not currently understand how dependent we are on minerals and because we do not balance continued growth against finite resources.
What can we expect in the future if we do not adapt, and when will we notice the shortage of resources?
– We are seeing it now, with a shortage of copper, nickel, cobalt and lithium in the market. But the market is also subdued, so it is not really visible. The idea that the mining industry can expand rapidly is not likely. It is not possible.
He adds that we are seeing a lot of economic chaos right now.
– And it hides the fact that there are deficits everywhere, not just in terms of metal. All parts of the system are collapsing.
When will this be generally felt globally?
– Probably by 2025, and maybe even by next year. The market will be disrupted, and some things will become unavailable, such as semiconductors and computers. There will be delays.
He mentions transformers.
– They are made in China. Normally you can get transformers within a few days. But in the future, it could take months or even years. Then we can either be without them or try to repair them. We have a society today that disposes of things quite easily, and we will probably need to become a society that repairs things.
We need to recycle and repair more.
You predict a population decline due to famine and lack of medical care. How did you come to that conclusion?
– It's very controversial, but that's what the research suggests. It is not possible to have a green transition for everyone on the planet. There will be a group of people who have things and others who do not. How do we deal with that?
What is needed, he believes, is a reduction in resource consumption and a new social contract.
– Every society is based on its energy source. When we had coal and steam engines, society was organized in a certain way. When we had oil, society was organized differently. When we enter a new energy technology of any kind, it changes the way we live. We have a selfish society, in which we have the idea that the individual is the most important thing. We do what we want. We don't care about others. But we are moving into an environment where we will have to work together in larger groups and share things. It's very different from the way we act now.
– When you tell people that, they tend to get very angry. So how do you approach the issue without making people angry? My work has implications far beyond my work and my mandate.
Simon Michaux works on calculations that can be used for decisions in industry and society to accelerate the transition to a sustainable world.
He also states that the existing energy sectors and electric vehicles are a step towards something else rather than an ultimate solution. We have to think about what the solutions might be, because whether we like it or not, ecological reality and biophysical constraints are going to come to the fore. We can either fight over resources or we can work together to find a solution.
How have your findings been received?
– Of those I have spoken to so far, almost 200 presentations, regardless of their political affiliation or where they come from, they all have the same reaction. First, shock. Then they try to poke holes in my findings. Then they ask me what they should do.
– I don't feel that it's being denied or rejected. But people don't know what to do because the problems are so big and fundamental. I think they are waiting for someone to come up with a solution in which they can participate.
Norran asked two Swedish scientists to comment on the report. State geologist Erik Jonsson of the Geological Survey of Sweden, SGU, says the report reflects what "many of us have been saying and writing for many years."
He agrees with the broad outlines.
– Renewable technology is very underdeveloped, and the fact that an extremely large amount of raw materials is needed to make the green transition should be obvious to anyone working in the field. But it is not very easy to make accurate calculations so far into the future. This is mainly because we do not know what new technological solutions might emerge.
Erik Jonsson believes it's reasonable to assume that the world can have a fully circular economy in 100 to 150 years.
He says that the International Energy Agency, the IEA, and the EU have figures that roughly point in that direction.
– There is always a risk with hypothetical numbers when you are talking about something this vast and over such a long period of time, he says.
But he doesn't think everyone will be able or willing to phase out fossil fuel dependence as quickly as the plans suggest.
– It is not reasonable to think that all non-industrialized countries can do it. Many companies are also invested in selling oil products, regardless of what idealists in the West think.
He points out that you have to be a rich and high-tech country to be able to manage the transition within a tight time frame.
– Some countries will have difficulties.
Christina Wanhainen believes the report should be read as an eye-opener for the raw material issues.
Christina Wanhainen, a professor of ore geology at Luleå University of Technology, says the report stands up well to criticism.
– It is important that someone analyzes the projections that set the targets for the transition. So far, there has been a lot of talk about carbon dioxide targets to reduce emissions, but less about the actual raw materials needed. For all of us to feel motivated, we need to have realistic goals.
– We don't have a shortage of raw materials today, but the problem is time. The tight timeframe is a big challenge. There isn't an unlimited supply of materials in such a short time. Prospecting and opening mines is a slow process.
However, she believes that the demand for certain raw materials, such as lithium, may be less than the report suggests, because the transition may use other materials in the future. But often one metal is replaced by another, so the raw material problem of a lot of material in a short time remains, regardless of the metal.
– I think the report should be read as a warning that we need to look at the availability of raw materials. I think those who have been critical have overlooked the fact that the green transition here should happen at the same time, because the lead times to get raw materials are very long. It's important for researchers to have the courage to sound the alarm about things that are not being discussed enough, she says.
She points out that climate deniers have seized on the report as a reason not to make the transition.
– But they haven't read to the end of the report. It's about the fact that we need to reduce our consumption and think very differently about our energy system. That we need to build a new electrical system. Technology continues to evolve, but it won't help if we think we can just carry on as usual. It requires a profound societal change, otherwise sooner or later there will be a shortage of minerals.
Norran asked the government and the IEA to comment on the situation and the report, but they have not responded.
